Even if you call it an act of war...are you going to go to war over this?

You're talking about a fight between two nuclear states, and you're talking about a scenario where Britain wouldn't even know where to target. You are speaking about millions of lives in the balance. Is that a proportional response to this?

I wouldn't want to be the UK government right now. What is the proporotional and safe, but firm response to a chemical weapon assassination plot?

I don't know whether you know this or not, but war has been upon Ukraine for 4 years now, whether or not Reddit likes or admits it, and most of the struggles Ukraine had with Russian incursions were due to lack of equipment in both quantity and quality.

most of the struggles Ukraine had with Russian incursions were due to lack of equipment in both quantity and quality.

Also incredibly stupid military maneuvers. And rampant corruption in the military. And internal conflicts between military and government agency trying to capture assets that can be squeezed for money.

And that's just the things that I have personally witnessed. So I highly doubt better equipment will solve anything, it will most likely be sold on the black market to line some pockets up a bit more.

2 possible results to this if it's at all significant (aka armor, air/anti air assets in significant numbers), in my amateur opinion:

Russia matches the UK's arms exports by sending more arms to Ukrainian separatists and more russian's holiday in Donetsk. stalemate continues after whichever side is emboldened enough to start an offensive either fails, or scenario 2 happens.

The Ukrainians make significant gains in the separatists regions, after which Russia steps in officially to defend ethnic Russians from "Ukrainian oppression". The west publicly condemns this, implements more sanctions at best, as the Ukrainian government is overthrown and replaced with a pro Russian one before any coherent western military response is even possible. any attempt to attack the new Russian allied government of Ukraine risks nuclear war, so won't happen.

German companies co-own the fields and infrastructure in Russia. The new pipeline is financed and operated by a consortium of companies from Russia, Germany, Austria, the Netherlands, France and several other European countries, many of them state owned. They're not going to embargo themselves.

The primary way in which the UK can retaliate against Russia is the ease with which Russian oligarchs can clean money through the UK. It's the reason why Russia is so keen on the US dropping sanctions. It's all very well having billions, but they aren't a lot of use to you if you can't spend them where you'd like to.

It's unlikely the UK would consider military retaliation when it's most affective retaliations would be economic.

But acting alone is still possible. South-east England is a favourite playground of rich Russians. They keep their houses here, their children here, they float their companies on our stock exchange and they don’t make a secret of it. You’re not rich in Russia without being friends with Putin – in fact, there is a remarkably close correlation between the two groups – so if May’s government wants to send a message to the Russian president, it could cancel the visas of the members of his inner circle and, perhaps, try out the potency of its new “unexplained wealth orders”, by freezing their property. Then it should dismantle the mechanisms with which they launder their money.

So target them elsewhere, economically, maybe even target some of the other proxies that they've been building in the Ukraine and Syria.

But if the UK starts a war, it won't end simply with Russia saying "Well, we were wrong, no more assassinations", it will end with them launching their own counterattacks, which will most likely bring in NATO on all sides, and then we need to figure out where the end game of such a war would be. There is no good ending to that scenario.

We should NOT have fears of "war with Russia" stop us from punishing them properly!

Russians can assassinate targets with WMDs in Europe, North Koreans can sink ships and shell islands, but we won't do shit against these bullies, because we are afraid that a potential war would happen and cause millions of deaths? I understand South Korea being careful but there's nations around here more powerful than they are.

All the people yelling that if Hillary would win the US election there'd be a "war with Russia".

Even if you call it an act of war...are you going to go to war over this?

Direct warfare, no. But don't be surprised if we return to a cold-war style of proxy warfare. Syrian rebels, Ukranian soldiers and Caucasian opponents of Russia may suddenly develop a surprising ability to bring down Russian military aircraft, for instance.

I think Russia could've easily covered their tracks better had they wanted to. But they didn't. Just like they seem to be doing with a lot of things left and right, there is always that inch of doubt that let's them "deny" it, not even trying to keep a straight face. All just to see how far they can push it, how much the west is willing to tolerate.

With Putin's pal in the White House, the US isn't going to say anything, and Europe is a little more alone when it comes to Russia.

why do you assume that factions within your own government, despite covering up 1000's of paedophilia scandals, lying about Iraq etc are so beyond question that it makes MORE sense for Russia to sever their ties with the UK given the billions in real estate exposure to 'make a point' about traitors?

I think it's nonsense, but an easy pitch to the public.

Anyway, if the UK starts seizing Russian assets I will only be happy, it will put Russia into a more aggressive posture and punish Oligarchs for trusting the west with their money - win win if you ask me.

I get that UK has amazing financial services n' shit, but this will just create more incentive for Russian money to go to Asia.

I know one particular forum which made it against the rules to talk about anything after the year 2000 after the trolls took them down for having a thread discussing the Russian invasion of Ukraine (you can't sign up without authorisation, so that was the next logical response beyond the usual arguing that the sky's not blue).

Not necessarily. They could have evidence short of irrefutable proof. For example, they could determined the type of nerve agent used was of a type manufactured by Russia. They could have intercepts showing an irrefutable culpability of members of the Russian mafia with ties to the Kremlin, but no direct evidence of Kremlin involvement. Etc.

For example, they could determined the type of nerve agent used was of a type manufactured by Russia.

The entire family of the agent used was developed in the Soviet Union. We already know this. The British government is saying "highly likely" because it was Russia and we all know it, but proving so is near impossible.

This will end the same way as basically every other Russian indiscretion over the past 25 years - relations will worsen but ultimately nothing will happen. The west's relations with Russia are incredibly complex; I feel we often turn a blind eye to their actions out of fear that they'll seek closer ties with China.

they could determined the type of nerve agent used was of a type manufactured by Russia.

Seems to be the case but the problem is nerve agents break down ~30 minutes after being armed, so its impossible to determine the exact variety. Which is why the OPCW investigations use the phrase 'sarin like substance'. Novichok agents are sarin like substances and vice versa. They are both acetylcholinesterase inhibitors. So its impossible to say that a uniquely Russian variety was used.

Which is complete nonsense because there's no reason other countries or organisations couldn't have made this specific type if they know what type Russia has. As well as the fact nerve agents break down into parts roughly 30 minutes after use meaning the exact formula used is impossible to determine which is why the OPCW used the phrase 'sarin like substance' in their investigation in Syria.

And its "highly likely" that the Little Green Men in Ukraine were Russians, but no country in the current climate wants to make that accusation. Kind of youknow, because saying so would implicate the Russian state in breaking a load of international laws and cause the shaky balancing act of the West not going to war with them over their nonsense (which has happened for a hell of a lot less).

Yes, I believe its called "Appeasement", "Peace for our time" and what not. One way of looking at it is the West's giving the Russia's enough rope to hang themselves with, or trying to give them the ability to backtrack from their actions.

Instead the Russians haven't budged (internally the line's that sanctions are a good thing, and isolationism makes the state stronger "we don't need them anyway". )

...She made an announcement. She's talking to the Russian ambassador. Once the talks are over then the response will be made.

Right now based on her statement she wants to speak to the Russians first before laying them out to dry. Immediately going nuclear may not be the best political move.

Though no, at this point anyone who denies Russian involvement with anything which potentially could have been the Russians, and is "highly likely", is living on another planet. They're a deliberately antagonist government who doesn't care about an equilibrium in the international community. Their goals are entirely self centred, and given their ability to get away with illegal acts already, further nonsense like that is to be expected.

This Putin guy is really something: at the height of anti-Russian hysteria in the west, and right before both the Russian election and World Cup, he decides the time is right to execute a spy living openly in the UK since 2010 using a Russia-traced nerve agent.

I don't discount the idea that they don't give a single fuck about Skripal himself, but it's possible he was a convenient target to deter future deserters like Rodchenkov (the whistleblower on Russian doping campaign), shortly after the Olympics and Icarus winning the documentary Oscar. Just a thought.

It's not really hysteria, though? Polonium murder, a frozen conflict and a slow-motion border "adjustment" in Georgia, the invasion of Ukraine/Donbas, the annexation of Crimea, MH17, an attempted coup in Montenegro, a large military buildup and arms race, the increased provocations in the Baltics and the Nordic countries over sea and air, simulated nuclear attacks, election interference and perhaps even hacking, the sponsoring of extremist anti-European blocs, cyberwarfare, sending paramilitary hooligans into French cities, more assassinations, acts of war against U.S. military bases, repeated ADIZ intrusions with transponders switched off, endangering air traffic, kidnappings, piracy, threatening movements by Black Sea Fleet, possible covert support for North Korea and its nuclear ICBM program, untouchable international mafia escapades, Olympic doping scandals, escalating domestic repression, support for strongmen around the world and a constant barrage of conspiracy theories, disinformation and threats on Russian state-sponsored media.

Lol I know right. Putin, that crazy bastard. An old ex spy who has been caught 2 decades ago and had absolutely no sensitive information on Russia certainly is at the top of the list to be silenced.

The only one more crazy is Assad, remember how he decided to use chemical weapons just as the chemical weapons inspectors landed in the country to check whether he was using chemical weapons? And then, after he pretty much won the war and the rebels were done for, he decided to use more chemical weapons on a random village with no rebels in it.

He is as evil as an average politician anywhere in the world. None are saints, but saints tend to not reach the top of the food chain. If anything, he is less evil than average, as he pretty much inherited his position after a whole life of thinking he would just be a doctor, he never strived for it like most others.

He's indeed winning the war. Look at the map. Red is spreading by the day, green is shrinking, Ghouta will soon be all red, then the other pockets. Yellow will be taken out by Turkey after which they will hand it back to Assad or allow him to roll the paramilitaries and take it back. Eventually the whole country will be red. Iran controls no part of the country, neither does Russia, except for a few bases. Both are allies to Syria.

“Traitors will kick the bucket, believe me. Those other folks betrayed their friends, their brother in arms,
“Whatever they got in exchange for it, those 30 pieces of silver they were given, they will choke on them.”

How? There won't (and can't) be military action. And NATO is not responsible for economic sanctions, which are the only way to tackle this. What would you like NATO to do? Throw some bombs and summon the Great Filter?

Because all the military might in the world isn't going to stop nuclear warheads, which is what everyone wants to avoid.

This is the problem. Any response that Britain takes is going to be seen as lower in proportion compared to what Russia did. However, the only "proportional" action, that is military force, is an escalation that is going to leave far more dead than the original nerve agent did. Somewhere in the realm of thousands, if we're lucky, and more likely millions. And I'm sorry, but no country is going to put those odds together and decide military action is the best call.

Even now, reports are that May is considering pushing Magnitsky Act like sanctions on Russia, and removing delegates from the World Cup as potential retaliations. This is a far cry from armed military conflict.

Some of the comments on here really are unimaginably stupid. Do you really, really, really want to go to war with a country that possesses over a thousand nuclear warheads? I mean, fuck me - doesn't that terrify you? Because that terrifies me a lot more than what happened in Salisbury.

Uh, China and the Soviet Union both had Nuclear Weapons during their war in 1969? Or India and Pakistan in 1999? Israel vs the Soviet backed Arabs (the Soviets even started one of those wars with false information...)?

Meanwhile the rhetoric coming out of the other side is that they have weapons which their enemy can't protect themselves from (as per Putin's statement).

It depends if you think that using nerve agents in the UK is acceptable and whether the UK has a right to defend itself. It went to war with Georgia and is at war with Ukraine now in all but name. Russia is a rogue state and one way or another it will need to be dealt with.

Georgia is tiny and was obviously no threat to Russia, and if Western forces became involved directly in Ukraine then it would certainly escalate.

Any country has the right to defend itself, but that doesn't mean we should just go head-first into military conflict. We should ask ourselves whether going to war with Russia would be the best option to keep UK citizens safe, and I don't think it is - the risks are far too high.

NATO could simply be the best forum to talk about a joint response. Obviously they'd want Canada and the US to be involved. The UK would also like to disconnect talks about a joint allied response from Brexit negotiations.

I don't know how many people wish for or expect a military action (haven't read that far down the thread), but it's ludicrous to talk about anything of the sort in a serious tone.

Two of the three big figures from 2004's Orange Revolution have factored in the latest political upheaval: Viktor Yanukovych was ousted last month as president, and Yulia Tymoshenko was released from jail; she was serving a sentence that some saw as politically motivated.

Viktor Yushchenko, though, has hardly been heard from. In December, he and two other former presidents expressed solidarity with the protesters and called for both sides to refrain from violence. Otherwise, he's largely been quiet.

But his story in 2004 drew plenty of attention.

It sounded like a spy novel: A Ukrainian opposition candidate falls mysteriously ill, his face disfigured by a blotch of lesions. He has severe abdominal and back pain, and the left side of his face is paralyzed.

Something is always happening with Russian citizens who either escape Russian justice or for whatever reason choose the way of life that's called "changing Motherland". So the more scum Britain would accept on its territory from all over the world, the more problems it will have in the future.

Literally just rich Russians living in the UK AFAIK. The Tories are very pro-business, its not going to be just rich Russians supporting them, it will be rich Americans, many rich Europeans, rich Indians etc... who all have a big stake in London. There is no proof or indication that it is foul-play. Its pretty discriminatory towards British citizens with a Russian background and just completely out of place.

That is just... naive. You do realize that in Russia rich people are a lot more connected to their government than in western nations. The whole country is run by Oligarchs. Be as cynical as you want, this is not the fucking case in western Europe.

We'll see if she can spin this into a positive politic spin with all the fallout from her previous missteps. If she can provide a strong response then she may get the Tory vote by aping Thatcher's Falklands rhetoric. :P

Sadly the "British Lion" isn't much without the "US Eagle" .. the corrupt White House already made it clear they werent going to go against Russia with this one, brushing it off as a UK issue.. any other administration and there'd be knuckles cracking and massive sanctions being written out.

I'm not shocked at the lack of support for sanctions from other EU member states on the matter. It's very possible for the EU to sanction Russia over this, for the EU to have it's own investigation into the matter if it felt the need to do so, etc.

As bad as it is, this could be the seed for a renewed confidence in the British government. They've been appearing like a toothless tiger, especially with that whole Brexit desaster. The EU will stand close together with the UK on this one though. Or maybe I'm overestimating the severity of this on an international level. The death of Litvinenko apparently had no real consequences for Russia either.